Hyperdrawing: Beyond the Lines of Contemporary Art

128 Pages·2012·106.622 MB·English

by  TRACEY

Hyperdrawing

TRACEY
Hyperdrawing

Beyond the Lin es of

Contemporary Art
Published in 2012 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd
6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU
175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010

www.ibtauris.com

Distributed in the United States and Canada Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan

175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010

Copyright © 2012 Phil Sawdon and Russell Marshall

The right of Phil Sawdon and Russell Marshall to be identified as the authors of this work

has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988.

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, o r any part thereof,

may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in

any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISBN: 978 1 78076 254 8
A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
A full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: available
Typeset by JCS Publishing Services Ltd, www.jcs-publishing.co.uk
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Contents
Acknowledgements vi
Preface vii
Essays viii

The Artists xxx

Hyperdrawing 1

Artwork Details 89

v
Acknowledgements
TRACEY would like to acknowledge the
invaluable help and assistance of Darren
Weaver in shaping this book. We would also
like to thank the artists and essayists for
their support in Hyperdrawing. Finally, we
would like to thank Philippa Brewster for

being open to the concept.

vi
Preface
TRACEY is a ‘space’ that encourages, Sawdon, Andrew Selby and Jane Tormey), the boundaries of the Hyperdrawing space.
supports, hosts and disseminates research demonstrates, within fine art practice, the What categorises or classifies the works
in the area of drawing and visualisation, contemporary use of traditional materials as Hyperdrawing is explored within the
including the online peer-reviewed journal associated with drawing, such as pencil, four essays but it is ultimately left to the
of contemporary drawing research. TRACEY charcoal, pastel, pen and ink on paper in reader to make their own judgements.
is based in the School of the Arts at order to convey drawing as a conceptual Hyperdrawing provides images that use

Loughborough University. TRACEY’s aim is process. traditional materials or traditional subjects
to stimulate and support open-minded and Hyperdrawing: Beyon d the Lines of whilst also exploring the use of sound,
contemporary interest in drawing activity Contemporary Art, TRAC EY’s second book light, technologies, multiple dimensions,

– physically, cognitively and creatively. published by I.B. Tauris, curates images to reality and alternate realities. The

The space reflects a multi-disciplinary extend into the use of other materials common element, the ‘hyper-’, within all

approach to drawing activity and research. including time, space and sound. The prefix of the content in this book is ultimately

It endeavours to question preconceptions ‘hyper-’ is used to pro vide an inclusive a response to a position, proposed by
and to investigate the potential for what perspective on drawin g and encompass the editors, that contemporary drawing
drawing might be. any and all fine art dra wing practices that research would benefit by agreeing

The editors of this book are Russell may extend into this ‘other space’ and that drawing is an ambiguous practice.

Marshall and Phil Sawdon – co-editors and manifest as or exploit being ‘over’, ‘above’, Whilst Hyperdrawing takes the same

members of TRACEY – in collaboration ‘beyond’ and used to imply ‘excess’ or approach as Drawing Now, in that it is not

with Simon Downs, Deborah Harty, ‘exaggeration’ or ‘mor e than normal’. representative of all of what Hyperdrawing

Andrew Selby and Jane Tormey. TRACEY’s Hyperdrawing provides three invited essays is or might be, it provides a contemporary
first book published by I.B. Tauris, Drawing on Hyperdrawing and an editorial essay, view in both visual and written forms of

Now: Between the Lines of Contemporary Art together with images from 33 international how ambiguity can be used as a strategic

(2007, Simon Downs, Russell Marshall, Phil artists that collectively explore some of approach in drawing research and practice.

vii
Hyperdrawing
Russell Marshall and Phil Sawdon
Russell Marshall (TRACEY) is Senior indicated the presence of a boundary within to 2006; Hyperdrawing takes a five-year
Lecturer at Loughborough Design School, a boundary – a sub-boundary? view intersecting 2006 through to 2010.
Loughborough University. He is actively The prefix ‘sub-’ can be freely attached to Secondly, Drawing Now established a
involved in drawing and visualisation research.
elements of any origin and is used to indicate particular view of materials and support.
‘under’, ‘below’, ‘beneath’, which identifies this Hyperdrawing partly emerged from this
Phil Sawdon (TRACEY) is an Honorary
boundary within a boundary as a hierarchical bounding of the space, taking a broader and

Fellow at the School of the Arts,
element within the disc iplinary boundary, unconstrained approach – beyond rather
Loughborough University. He has a focus
or a supra-boundary? T he prefix ‘supra-’, than between – where drawing could
on contemporary drawing, particularly
meaning ‘above’/‘over’ o r ‘beyond the limits be identified across any and all material
questions concerning ambiguity and drawing

of’/‘outside of’, confirms this hierarchical approaches. Thirdly, neither curation is a
in the context of fine art practice and

interdisciplinary collaboration. He practises representation, a particular view of drawing deliberate and objective survey of drawing

creating texts and artefacts, including moving within contemporary fine art practice. within the respective spaces. The artists

image, that utilise drawing and publishes, The sub-boundary, w hilst clear and invited reflected the situating of their
exhibits and screens as appropriate. unbroken in the propo sal for Drawing work within the Hyperdrawing space. As
Now, becomes perfora ted into a dashed already established, the sub-boundary that
In 2007 TRACEY1 curated Drawing Now: delineation. The punctu ation of this marks the territory of Drawing Now lies

Between the Lines of Contemporary Art,2 which boundary, this line, with regular empty space wholly within that of Hyperdrawing and

developed a consideration of drawing’s presented a challenge, firstly to constrain an thus featuring of artists within one does

peculiar dependence on a direct and physical expanding field within the remit of Drawing not preclude their presence in the other,
process – the relationship between the Now and, secondly, to c onsider a position as demonstrated by Jordan MacKenzie,
hand, the drawing material and the paper. for drawing that wande rs or weaves across Maryclare Foá and Sarah Woodfine. The final
The book is founded on the premise that and through this boun dary. and possibly fundamental criterion was that

drawing thinks/talks in a particular way. An essentially restless position could be irrespective of material, and/or our position

Drawing Now curated works, within argued to be unconstrained by the limits on Hyperdrawing, the artists themselves had

the context of contemporary fine art of definition. This ambi guity presents an to describe their work as ‘drawing(s)’.
practice, as an ongoing process focused opportunity. Drawing N ow sits wholly within
on traditional drawing materials used the sub-boundary as d efined but also allows

in a manner to convey drawing as a for an unfolding of those limits from sub- to Hyperdraw(ing) – the

conceptual process. TRACEY worked with supra- or from hypo- to hyper- . . . drawing.

Expression
the assumption that drawing is most The situating of the Hyperdrawing
often thought of as certain materials on space both within and without that
particular types of support to produce a occupied by Drawing Now established a We have appropriated the expression
representational outcome. This context series of pragmatic curatorial criteria that ‘Hyperdrawing’ (noun) and ‘hyperdrawing’
established a remit or boundary for Drawing helped form the architecture of the book. (verb) with an understanding that the
Now that supported TRACEY’s curatorial These criteria were four-fold. Firstly, both prefixes sub- and supra- provided an
approach. Following the drawing of this works set out to curate contemporary articulate way of identifying and structuring
disciplinary boundary, the consequence of drawing within fine art practice: Drawing drawing territory. Drawing Now made
adopting a particular material approach Now takes a seven-year view from 2000 apparent the structural nature of the view
Hyperdrawing
taken of drawing within contemporary to differentiate between disciplinary fields. ing; to address the contemporary focus of
fine art practice. A clearly defined focus In exploring this view, what was initially a the book works would be post 2006; and
for the works to be curated presented series of positive sub-boundaries within irrespective of the authors’ view the artists
the challenge of how firmly the criteria for the negative unidentified space between must refer to the work as drawing.
inclusion could be adhered to. Inevitably, them became inverted: the focus shifted Through its other-space configuration
identifying a position assumes debates from the eye being drawn to this range of Hyperdrawing identifies outcomes that
about terminology and definition. The sub-boundary elements to the unexplored are exploratory and travel the length and
result, or perhaps more accurately, the otherness. In beginning to explore this breadth of a very large territory. Curating
ongoing process, led us to resist becoming otherness, this ‘other-space’, the structuring Hyperdrawing presented a challenge in
constrained by this assumption. The of these spaces suggests that, in this context, identifying the ‘hyper-ness’ of one drawing
position adopted was to seek opportunity it is a location for Drawings/drawing that over another, and in meeting this challenge
in the areas that are ill defined, that cannot be located with in the sub-boundaries. a series of discussions began to map out

prove problematic with the inflexibility of In following the Latin r oot of these terms, this territory. As presented, there was no

definition, and that begin to manifest within this might be called Supradrawing. However, intention to establish a representative

a structure of drawing where there is the ‘supra’ is much less syn onymous with the sample from across Hyperdrawing, although
possibility for a space outside of normal or visual than its Greek et ymological equivalent, it was important to explore the possibilities
supposedly well-understood areas of activity. ‘hyper’. Thus Hyperdraw ing inhabits this and survey the location of the established
other space and manife sts as, or exploits
The development of this space/these boundary (this would assume that the
being, ‘over’/‘above’/‘be yond’, usually
spaces and their structure could not boundary was well defined). This process

implying ‘excess’, ‘exaggeration’ or ‘more
shy completely away from terminology; identified a series of ad hoc categories used
than normal’.
a mechanism was required to at least initially as a pragmatic methodology for
differentiate between the space within and It is noted that Hyp erDraw(ing), managing the complex scope of the book.
Hyper Draw(ing) and H yperdrawing have
the space without and to provide a means These categories were not entirely
established themselves within various digital
to discuss drawing that moves between rigorous and were not exclusive, with

computer-based activities such as music
spaces. This led to the adoption of the works that could easily have sat within

editing and digital drawing. In addition,
common prefix ‘sub-’, used to identify the more than one. One such category was
Hyperdrawing as a term might be assumed
subordinate elements of drawing territory hyperreal (e.g. Glen, Gluzberg, Haendel).
to have a digital empha sis. However, that is
such as the traditional view embraced by Hyperreal works were a convenient and
one of the assumption s we will challenge
Drawing Now. Without actually requiring the largely well-understood area in which to
through the works and artists chosen, i.e. a
definition of the contents of the territory categorise Hyperdrawings. Hyperdrawing

‘more than the normal’ expectation.
the prefix merely reinforces a hierarchical also manifests through its opportunity
structure and provides distinction whilst to explore dimensions. The 2D3D4D
still supporting flexibility. Identifying a category (e.g. Blankenstein, Cooper, Coyle,
Hyperdrawing – the
space or region as ‘sub’ logically suggests Siebert) explored artists who exploit

the presence of its inverse, a ‘supra’ space Position the ability to break boundaries between
that encompasses and completes the dimensions. Media opportunities were
basic structure. Here sub-boundaries are In exploring Hyperdrawing the curation identified through categories of: light, sound,
drawn that encompass a particular view of process was directed primarily by the crit- technology and strange stuff (e.g. Bertola,
drawing practice. A supra-boundary then eria outlined earlier: there was no material/ Blankenstein, Curtis, Lewis, Vogl). Notionally
encompasses the sub-boundaries and the support restriction; artists with outcomes ‘difficult’ or slippery categorisations were
space between them. Exactly what the supra- identified as fulfilling the ‘traditional’ criteria represented by categories such as alternate
boundary delineates is open for discussion for Drawing Now were not precluded from reality (Blankenstein, Grayson, Haendel, Hill)
but may conveniently be used in this context also featuring outcomes within Hyperdraw- that explored the subtle and ambiguous
iixx
Hyperdrawing
territory of the hyperreal beyond that of ‘drawing’ as well as those that are ‘called materialise; drawing can also be understood
photorealism. drawings but’, which may sit less comfort- temporally, as the act of making time and of
Emma Cocker, Siún Hanrahan and Marsha ably. The final macro category is not covered deciding how to act.
Meskimmon were invited to contribute within this book as it includes work directly
Marsha Meskimmon states:
to a discussion around Hyperdrawing opposed to our final criterion for inclusion.
through individual essays from ambiguous In establishing categories that
Techné does not distinguish sharply between
disciplinary perspectives. The starting point encompass Hyperdrawings, that are ‘not
the hand and the machine, nor assume
for this particular part of the process called drawings’, Siún Hanrahan creates a hierarchy of materials, processes or
was a briefing in the invitation to both an interesting tension that hints at the procedures in creative practice. Rather, techné
the essayists and artists that included a subtleties of individual and collective is open-ended, seeking to fold processes
position on Hyperdrawing. This position, as perspectives on drawing. The tension in upon themselves and to cross genres.
already discussed, focused on what drawing reflects discussions ab out the order4 of Like drawing, techné permits the possibility

might be and deliberately established that drawing and whether T aylor’s5 view of the of inexhaustible extension, elaboration
as temporal agency, risking ephemerality,
the book would not be about defining boundary-busting nature of contemporary
exigency and excess.
‘what is drawing’ and, by extension, ‘what drawing leads to the fa llacy of circular
is Hyperdrawing’. Instead the position reasoning. The circular reasoning in this
Hyperdrawing is identified as being
adopted was that terms such as drawing case is created by the drawing disciplinary
less about where and more about when.
and Hyperdrawing are inherently ambiguous boundary that encomp asses various
The ‘above’ and ‘in excess of’ nature of
and that contemporary drawing research sub-boundaries and th e intersecting
Hyperdrawing suggests a two- or three-
would benefit by agreeing that drawing is Hyperdrawing space within and between.
dimensional view with Hyperdrawing
an ambiguous practice.3 The response was Thus the discipline of d rawing appears to inhabiting space that is mostly uncon-
interesting in that all contributors appeared contain work that is no t called drawing.
strained and capable of an inter/intra/
comfortable with this proposed position and However, are the dr awing boundaries a
cross-disciplinary view. However, Hyper-
also capable of either situating their work in, fallacy?
drawing is equally, if not more of, a

or adopting their own position/perspective Is drawing so ubiqui tous as to make fourth-dimensional view where the spatial
relative to, Hyperdrawing. In developing their boundary searches red undant? boundaries are broken by a dimension
Emma Cocker and Marsha Meskimmon
relative positions/perspectives the essayists where such boundaries are diminished to a
establish common territory or themes both establish Hyperdr awing as a form point that they no longer act as a constraint
of techné where drawin g practice is not
within the boundary of Hyperdrawing. to drawing practice and instead merely
constrained by spatial boundaries.
Siún Hanrahan identifies three categories provide context and a means to establish

Emma Cocker states:
of Hyperdrawing; these categories establish Hyperdrawing through establishing what
a further hierarchical representation at a is not Hyperdrawing. Fundamentally, what
It is in these terms, that Hyperdrawing
macro level, above those presented earlier. this fourth-dimensional view provides is the
might be considered a form of productive
The three categories – self-identified as knowledge – or techn é. Here, techné is not opportunity and openness that character-

drawing; inter-media specifying drawing; and used in its habitual sense, where it is taken ises Hyperdrawing practice, the opportunity
self-differentiated as drawing – differentiate to simply mean the skilful art of making and not in doing but in being able to do or in
between Hyperdrawings and expand upon doing, the practical knowledge or technical establishing the conditions to be able to do.
our final criteria for inclusion in the book. facility of craftsmanship. . . . All three essayists refer to time in their
Hyperdrawings thus become one of: ‘draw- Rather than referring to drawing solely discussion of Hyperdrawing. Emma Cocker
ings’; ‘called drawings but . . .’; and ‘not called in spatial terms, where the attempt to go distinguishes between chronological time
drawings and . . .’. The first two are included beyond is conceived as one of giving shape (chronos) and kairotic time in identifying
within this book and there are examples of to new forms, or of making – and leaving – a Hyperdrawing’s position in not only
work easily and comfortably identifiable as space wherein something unexpected might being subject to and able to embody the
x